HourBike or NineDayWonderBike?

Bristol Traffic just beat me to it with pics of the new Hourbike installations, or hubs, in central Bristol, but at least I managed to find the one tucked away by At-Bristol as well as the one on Colston Avenue. The third is by the BRI and, er, that's it apparently, apart from the existing hubs at Parkway station and the UWE campuses. Map viewable here.

The idea is that you hire a bike near the origin of your journey (or modal transfer point like a railway station or P&R site) and then deposit it at a hub near your destination, so no concerns about bike security when you're not actually using it and no need to pay hire charges other than for the time you're actually riding the bike. Ideal, in principle, for shortish trips around town when you don't have your own bike available.



But with such a meagre distribution of 'hubs' the options are extremely limited. At-Bristol to BRI might just about be worth cycling and the BRI is quite close to the bus station, but either destination to the Colston Avenue hub is such a short distance that it's hardly worth the bother of hiring a bike. A longer journey combined with the use one's own bike lock to secure the bike at the destination is possible, but you'd pay for all the time on hire. And how many people are likely to have a decent bike lock with them?

Temple Meads station is the most obvious 'missing link', so could it be that First Great Western weren't willing to fund a Temple Meads hub, as they had at Bristol Parkway last year? Perhaps the minimal usage of the Parkway hub had given them cold feet? Could it be that a Temple Meads hub is due to appear shortly, before the official launch, whenever that is? As usual with Cycling City funded projects we know little more than can be observed on the ground or via the Internet.



One of the major issues with unsupervised automated bike hire schemes with hubs in public places is the vulnerability of the bikes to theft and vandalism, so let's have a closer look at the details. The bikes are secured by a prong attached to the top of the head tube which looks fairly solid, but the prong appears to be held to the head tube bracket by an allen key bolt. Could it be that all it takes to remove the bike is to undo an allen key bolt?

Another obvious vulnerability, pointed out by Bristol Traffic, is the easy removability of saddle and seat posts via saddle height adjustment mechanisms. BT didn't actually try to steal one, but I did. It doesn't work because at the high limit of adjustment something stops the seat post being raised any further, presumably an enlargement of the very end of the seat post. So at least they've thought of that one.



The lights look extremely vulnerable to damage, which is a shame because it's a neat little lighting system based on an expensive hub dynamo. The rear light could have been built into the rear carrier rack to protect it from casual damage and the front could have had a metal frame built around it for the same purpose. Or they could forget about lights altogether and let users make their own arrangements as and when necessary (which is what I think I would have done).



Both wheels are based on some fancy hubs incorporating brakes and with a dynamo in the front so might be considered desirable by those who appreciate such eminently practical features. The rims and tyres look quite decent too. The wheels are secured by what look like hexagon nuts but which on closer inspection appear to be some special security nuts. I wasn't 'tooled up' yesterday so haven't yet had a serious attempt at stealing bits, but we'll see in due course. I guess all the hub brakes connections would have to be undone too so maybe it's simpler to nick the whole bike.



The actual bicycle frames look cheaply built (crude welding) and clunky, so I don't suppose the bikes as a whole will be coveted by many, but some components are seriously vulnerable. CCTV might be a good idea to deter interference, but there were no signs advertising the presence of CCTV (which signs could be displayed even if there wasn't any CCTV, as on the Railway Path, if one wasn't too scrupulous about honesty - at least the Council shouldn't have any problem with that).

So my verdict, based on what I've seen, is that Hourbike in Bristol will be a nine day wonder and briefly attract a lot of media interest, followed by a longer period where it becomes a standing joke as the bikes suffer attrition but precious little in the way of legitimate use. This is primarily because the existing 'network' is so ludicrously limited. If Temple Meads and a few other central locations, perhaps including Long Ashton P&R, were included then it might have a chance.

Later correction 9 pm Saturday.



I've since discovered that the Hourbike bikes come equipped with a combination cable lock (combination issued on hire) so you wouldn't need to have your own lock. Having said that cable locks are notoriously easy to cut through and then the hirer would be responsible for the loss. Plus previous hirers of the same bike will know the combination. I wouldn't trust one.

Why Words Matter.

Following on from the last post about the use of the term "new" by Cycling City to describe existing cycle routes that are being upgraded, which provoked some interesting responses including this coverage in an online cycling magazine (thanks to Noel for that link), I thought it might be productive to explore why the meaning of words, semantics, isn't merely a matter for "sterile and pedantic" debate as suggested by Cllr Jon Rogers.

First a dabble in the theory. All our thoughts and actions are based on ideas which are formulated with words. If words don't have agreed and recognised meanings then we cannot use them with any precision. If we cannot use words with precision then the ideas based on them become amorphous and ultimately meaningless. Then our thoughts and actions have no solid basis, which leaves us prey to the shysters, snake oil salesmen and politicians of this world. If that makes any sense you might like this piece by Charles Eisenstein, kindly flagged up by Tim Beadle and others via twitter, which takes the theme much further.



Now for a practical example. Yesterday Jon Rogers, who I'm still convinced wants to be as open and transparent as is possible, answered a query about the Hourbike scheme raised on the public Bristol cycling Campaign forum, saying (in a series of responses which I've amalgamated)-

I had a briefing this afternoon about imminent HourBike launch. Small private company that has been quietly trialling up at UWE between Parkway Station and UWE.

Officer response..."It's not part of the Council's Cycling City programme, but a private initiative started before the Cycling City funding was announced and consistent with our aims to promote and increase cycling. As part of the programme however we are also looking at the options for wider access to bikes, of which hire on a bigger scale is one."

Hour Bike is privately funded. They have, I understand had a grant of £4k, with further £4K for launch and £4k due next year - total £12K from Council investment. Would you like me to ask if that is counted as part of the council share of it's investment in Cycling City?

But then quite a lot more information emerged from another source. It seems this "privately funded private initiative" is mostly funded by public funds (from Bristol City Council, the University of the West of England (UWE) and First Great Western) and originated from publicly funded research at UWE. So Jon Rogers might well be pondering what 'private' means in that context. Clearly the officers giving him advice have a very different idea of the meaning of the word to me.

We also learn that another £20k of Cycling City money was allocated to the second phase of the Hourbike project. How does that fit with the £12k funding (which may or may not be Cycling City money - we still await a response on that point) reported by Jon Rogers? Some people need to be reminded that Cycling City money remains our tax money, however many different agencies it's passed between, and we're entitled to know exactly what it is being spent on.

The Cycling City launch press release said -

And there are new plans for a 24 hour automated bike hire scheme called ‘Hourbike’, providing bike locations (docking stations) across Bristol City centre and further afield around Parkway Station and the University of the West of England. This is subject to agreements on funding by the operator.

So is it right to say that the Hourbike scheme is not part of Cycling City? The Cycling City PR materials seems to say that it is. The funding seems to say that it is. But the officers say that it isn't. Who should Jon Rogers believe? Who should we believe?



My interpretation of this is that Cycling City are distancing themselves from the Hourbike scheme, presumably because they don't think it's viable or simply aren't prepared to pump prime it to the level where it could be viable. The Hourbike map suggests just three new locations in central Bristol to go with the four existing locations at Parkway (above) and UWE. That looks like little more than a token gesture to me.

But of course if Cycling City were honest and open about these things we wouldn't need my 'interpretations' or speculation, rumour and guesswork. We'd have the facts, based on words with agreed meanings. Surely Jon Rogers must be beginning to appreciate the logic of that.

Cycling City - New for Old

There's an interesting debate going on in connection with Cycling City. What constitutes a "new" route as opposed to an existing route that has been improved in some way? The latest installment in this debate occurred yesterday with this story in the Evening Post claiming that "Two new links from the Bristol and Bath Railway Path could benefit cyclists and walkers living in Speedwell, St George, Redfield and Whitehall ".



The routes in question, shown on the map above (click to enlarge) by #24 and #25, are essentially existing routes (shown on the map below) which are already used by cyclists. However 'improvements' are proposed, including such things as light controlled road crossings and improved surfaces and realignments in places. So is it right to call them "new links"? As you can see from the comments on the article I accused the council of 'lying' over this use of the word "new" but Jon Rogers, the Executive Member for Transport, said -

This is a public consultation to create two new cycle links. True, the paths already exist, but the plan is to consult local residents and users of the Railway Path on improvements to the links to make them more suitable for cycling and walking. Words like "upgraded" or "improved" might strictly be more accurate than "new", but to accuse Bristol City Council of "lying" seems a bit strong.

Chris, we had the same sterile and pedantic discussion on the St Werburghs to Muller Road path, but if you travel along it you will see there is a "new path". The path is also "improved" and "upgraded".

The council press release for the opening of the St Werburghs path said "Bristol's trailblazing Cycling City programme has delivered the first completed kilometre of a new off-road cycle route". Note "route" rather than "path", so the "new" claim refers to the overall existence of the route, not some facet of it such as the new asphalt surface of the path. Yet it is well known that the very same route has been used by cyclists for at least the last 20 years.


The as yet non-existent link to Speedwell, actually built in 1980s.

The problem dates back to the beginning of the Cycling City project. For example the promotional leaflet issued in February of this year, at the first (so far) relaunch, included the map above which shows proposed "new infrastructure" (dark blue lines) and "new infrastructure on existing network" (broad cerise lines). So clearly the "new infrastructure" (dark blue) is by implication NOT on the existing network.

But the St Werburghs route (#2 on map above), which might reasonably be described as "new infrastructure on existing network" is in fact marked in dark blue and therefore as "new infrastructure" NOT on the existing network. Likewise the proposed "new link" to Speedwell (#24 on the map above) is shown as "new infrastructure" (dark blue) when it is in fact based on the existing network and so should properly be marked cerise). Are these "sterile and pedantic" distinctions?



Oddly enough the other "new link" (to St George) claimed in yesterday's Post story is shown merely as "existing network", but for a small element within it. So they can get it right occasionally, if only because they can't manage to be consistent about anything, even their deceits. The map shows many other examples of existing routes which are misrepresented as "new infrastructure", in fact most of what is marked in dark blue within the Cycling City area is existing cycle route.

Cycling City claims that it will deliver "13 miles of new track and 18 miles of improvements to the existing 73 miles of off-road track". So far, one year into the three year project, they have delivered less than half a mile of improved track. The 13 miles figure is pure fiction (and probably the other figures too, although I'm not yet in a position to prove that) and that fact will continue to be exposed on this blog until such time as the council come clean and withdraw all the false claims made in support of Cycling City.

Cycling City - Constructive Suggestion #6

My last suggestion for south Bristol seemed to generate a more positive response than usual so here another idea to improve links between the city centre and the Southville / Bedminster area, an area that is mostly fairly flat and all within one and a half miles of the centre. General traffic routes are constrained by the River Avon and New Cut, so traffic congestion is high on the main river crossing at Bedminster Bridge.



Cyclists and pedestrians however have the option of using a number of traffic free bridges of which Gaol Ferry Bridge is the most popular. In fact Gaol Ferry Bridge is itself quite congested at times (above and below), with cyclists and pedestrians channeled into narrow 'pens' in a crude attempt to minimise conflict between them. If cycling continues to grow the limitations of Gaol Ferry Bridge will become even more critical. The other traffic free bridges are either remote from the main desire line (Ashton Avenue Bridge) or unsuitable for cycle use due to access problems (Vauxhall Bridge).



So how about a new pedestrian/cycle bridge over the New Cut, say halfway between Gaol Ferry Bridge and the next crossing point, to relieve the growing pressure there and perhaps give users a more direct link towards Prince Street Bridge? Such bridges need not be particularly expensive - perhaps around a million pounds - providing the approaches and abutments can be engineered fairly simply.

The most logical locations (shown as red links below) would feed directly into the best available links to Prince Street Bridge, either the link under Cumberland Road or near the southern end of Wapping Road. I favour the former link because it minimises conflict with motor traffic by passing under Cumberland Road and could make use of existing structures to provide abutments. There may even be a case for building bridges at both locations!


View South Bristol Routes. in a larger map

The map above shows how such bridges could link on in, including back to my last suggestion at Ashton Gate where a direct link can be made with the proposed Colliters Greenway to continue into Ashton Vale. Improved links southwards to the Malago Greenway would also be desirable and might be more readily achieved from a new bridge than from Gaol Ferry Bridge.



Providing the project was handled by an outside agency rather than the City Council it might all be achievable within a modest timescale and budget, possibly within the remaining two years of the Cycling City project. As with my other suggestions it's up to others to pick up and run with this if they think it sounds promising. But if we don't look at resolving the capacity constraints in corridors like this then cycling will not be able to grow to its full potential.


Cycle Bridge Chic - is it just me or are cycle bridges really sexy?

Car Free Sundays

The idea of occasional car-free Sundays when areas of the city centre are temporarily closed to motor traffic has been tried and tested in many major cities around the world but has as yet not been taken up in Britain in any more than a tokenistic way. But it now seems as if the time might be right to push for Bristol to be the first UK city to institute regular car free Sundays affecting a substantial area of the city centre.



Swiftly following on the heals of Jon Rogers' proposal for more car-free Sundays on the Portway has come a proposal by a leading Conservative Councillor, Peter Abraham, to instead make street closures in the city centre in the manner of our twin city Bordeaux. The Portway closure proposal got a rather mixed reaction, even from the anti-car lobby, since it's a bit remote from the heart of the city and is not normally frequented by those, cyclists and pedestrians, who might benefit the most.

The city centre however is becoming a more popular place to go on Sundays, partly due to the popularity of Sunday shopping but also due to increasing tourism and a more cosmopolitan approach to life. Even without a special event plenty of people would be around to enjoy a traffic free environment in the centre although there is obviously plenty of scope to encourage the integration of festivities and entertainments with car-free Sundays.


View Car free centre in a larger map

The extent of any such closure remains to be determined, but my guess is that it might be based on the limits shown on my entirely speculative map above. This would create a traffic free Park Street, College Green, Centre, Old City, Queen Square and Broadmead while allowing car access to Cabot Circus and almost all the other major car parks. Traffic by-passing the centre to the west would use Park Row, Jacobs Wells Road, Hotwell Road, Cumberland Road and Coronation Road.

If we want to see this idea progressed we must make clear our support and enthusiasm. Write to the Executive Member for Transport, jon.rogers@bristol.gov.uk, and comment on local web sites like that of the Evening Post. That's the way we demonstrate public support and overcome the moaning of the reactionaries of the pro-car lobby.

Here's some links to inspire you (thanks to TonyD from comments below) from New York and Vancouver.